I think my point was that they are saying the same thing, but one can't just come out and say, 'hey I rewrote Aristotle.' Not that I think he did any such thing; it's a joke. BUT, Aristotle always played up the importance of plot plot plot and Egri said character was all. But both did the same thing, that is each was after the same end. Just for one, plot was moved by characters (who really didn't matter beyond their superficial whathaveyous i.e. it wasn't important what their childhoods were like etc.) and for the other, character determined plot (i.e. it really mattered what the character's childhood was like.) So an emphasis on Freudian psychological motivations as opposed to an utter opposition to the idea of neurotic introspection (which a tragic hero would never have and if they did would cause their downfall.) But in practical terms (how it all comes out in the end) this is like the difference between Baptist congregations over some minor doctrinal dispute; it doesn't really change the work. Obviously, ancient theater is going differ significantly from 20th century realist plays, but you know...um, I hope this rambling reply has been helpful in terms of clarifying my poor explanation. It does read a little huh? now that I look back. Thanks for reading!
Thank you for pointing that out, Daniel.
My mistake.
Somehow I doubt that will happen, but I tend to agree with you, at least insofar far as the deluge of supernumerary statues goes. The event's relevance in this case has more to do with the power structure in Hollywood, though, than, say, overblown musical numbers and interminable award ceremonies.
Hi Simon. Are you referring to the soundcloud comment or the article as I wrote it? Or both? Regards, J Morrow
"Contradictio in terminus" I believe, but yes; though isn't the logically fallacious the, um, purview of the cinema? Viz. the camera exposes film, and this film, projected, presents the viewer with a "realistic" picture of life. Except it's not realistic, but more artificial than etc. It occurs to me that you could have meant the 'interminus' as a back-handed way of saying the article was an interminable contradiction, in which case, ably played. Yrs., the author